Freethought & Rationalism Archive

roncuomo · 04-27-2004, 08:34 AM

This is my first posting so bear with me.
I have come across a comment in a book I am reading regarding an apparent well known novelist...Julien Gracq.
Gracq believes that underlying the text of the Gospels there is a powerful unity of style. He goes on to say " this derives from one unique and inimitable voice whose expression is so original, so bold that one could positively call it impudent."
He believes that this unity of style carries much more weight than philological arguments.
This is the first time I've come across this argument in trying to legitimize the notion of divine inspiration.

funinspace · 04-27-2004, 09:39 AM

I have not read this author, but I would say he has a strange idea..."this unity of style". All one has to do is actually read Mark vs. John and see that this is utter rubish. There is no unity of style, other than they were written by people in the same area 1900 years ago.

DK

CX · 04-28-2004, 10:48 AM

I have to concur with fis. Is there any kind of argument to support this "unity of style" notion? It seems obviously wrong on the face of it.

Llyricist · 04-28-2004, 10:53 AM

Well actually there IS a "unity of style" amongst Mk, Mt and Lk. Nevermind the reason is that Mt and Lk COPIED large chunks of Mk.

But I have to agree that Gracq must have wholly ignored John in any analysis to come to his conclusion.

CX · 04-28-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

Well actually there IS a "unity of style" amongst Mk, Mt and Lk. Nevermind the reason is that Mt and Lk COPIED large chunks of Mk.

But I have to agree that Gracq must have wholly ignored John in any analysis to come to his conclusion.

I disagree. I would suggest there is a commonality of narrative material. The styles are nonetheless very different particuarly between GMk and the other two synoptics. Perhaps we need further clarification of what is meant by style. I took it to mean rhetorical stylistic elements rather than anything to do with content.

CX · 04-28-2004, 11:21 AM

Additionally, like so many apologetical arguments I've seen, there seems to eb a tendancy for apologists to predicate arguments on foundations that are baldly asserted to be true with no argument. Even the most famous apologetic arguments fall prey to this:

Lord, Liar, Lunatic by C.S. Lewis - predicated on the idea that there was an historical Jesus and that we can reliably know something about him based on NT accounts

Pascal's Wager - predication on the idea that only two choices, the Xian God exists or not, are possible and that belief in a deity is a matter of will.

Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell, predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons.

Johann_Kaspar · 04-28-2004, 11:30 AM

Even inside Mt there is no unity of style. This text was edited by many different authors over a lengthy period of time.

CX · 04-29-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Even inside Mt there is no unity of style. This text was edited by many different authors over a lengthy period of time.

Are you sure you're not thinking of GJn? Do you have a reference on multiple authorship/layers of redaction for GMt?

Vinnie · 04-29-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roncuomo

This is my first posting so bear with me.
I have come across a comment in a book I am reading regarding an apparent well known novelist...Julien Gracq.
Gracq believes that underlying the text of the Gospels there is a powerful unity of style. He goes on to say " this derives from one unique and inimitable voice whose expression is so original, so bold that one could positively call it impudent."
He believes that this unity of style carries much more weight than philological arguments.
This is the first time I've come across this argument in trying to legitimize the notion of divine inspiration.

The only thing resembling this slightly that I can think of is Luke Timothy Johnson's argumentation in The Real Jesus for popular memory or some such regarding the J story.

Vinnie

Toto · 04-29-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roncuomo

This is my first posting so bear with me.
I have come across a comment in a book I am reading regarding an apparent well known novelist...Julien Gracq.
Gracq believes that underlying the text of the Gospels there is a powerful unity of style. . . . .

Gracq was a novelist who wrote surrealistic fiction, not a New Testament scholar. This is all I can find about him on the web:

The Opposing Shore

Quote:

With four elegant and beautifully crafted novels Julien Gracq has established himself as one of France's premier postwar novelists. A mysterious and retiring figure, Gracq characteristically refused the Goncourt, France's most distinguished literary prize, when it was awarded to him in 1951 for this book. . . .

Julien Gracq (the pseudonym of Louis Poirier) was born in 1910 in Saint-le-Vieil.

Is this the source for the OP?

Sermon

Quote:

Textual problems have led some modern scholars to question the credibility of the Gospels and even to question the historical existence of Christ. These revisionist studies have provoked lately an intriguing reaction from an unlikely source: Julien Gracq - an old and prestigious novelist, who was close to the Surrealist movement - made a comment which is all the more arresting for coming from an agnostic. I do not have the space to reproduce here in full the pages which he wrote on this subject in a recent volume of essays; I shall merely summarise his argument. Gracq first acknowledged the impressive learning of the scholar whose work he was commenting upon, as well as the devastating logic of his reasoning; but he confessed that, in the end, he still found himself left with one fundamental objection: for all his formidable erudition, the scholar in question has simply no ear - he could not hear what should be so obvious to any sensitive reader - that, underlying the text of the Gospels, there is a masterly and powerful unity of style, which derives from one unique and inimitable voice; there is the presence of one singular and exceptional personality, a personality whose expression is so original, so bold, that one could positively call it impudent. Now, if you deny the existence of Jesus, you must transfer all these attributes to some obscure anonymous writer, who should have had the improbable genius of inventing him - or, even more implausibly, you must transfer this prodigious capacity for invention to an entire committee of writers. And Gracq concluded: in the end, if modern scholars, progressive-minded clerics and the docile public all surrender to this critical erosion of the Scriptures, the last group of defenders who will obstinately maintain that there is a living Jesus at the central core of the Gospels will be made of artists and creative writers, for whom the psychological evidence of style carries much more weight than mere philological arguments...

(Pierre Ryckmans - "An Introduction to Confucious" - Quadrant March 95)

I think that, read carefully, this does not claim that there is a unity of literary style in the Gospels, but that there is the presence of a unique personality behind the gospels. (This argument sounds familiar - perhaps it is the source of Will Durant's claim that Jesus could not have been invented.)

04-27-2004, 08:34 AM	#1
roncuomo Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Oakville Posts: 20	Gracq split from Gospel Style This is my first posting so bear with me. I have come across a comment in a book I am reading regarding an apparent well known novelist...Julien Gracq. Gracq believes that underlying the text of the Gospels there is a powerful unity of style. He goes on to say " this derives from one unique and inimitable voice whose expression is so original, so bold that one could positively call it impudent." He believes that this unity of style carries much more weight than philological arguments. This is the first time I've come across this argument in trying to legitimize the notion of divine inspiration.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-27-2004, 09:39 AM	#2
funinspace Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: North West usa Posts: 10,245	I have not read this author, but I would say he has a strange idea..."this unity of style". All one has to do is actually read Mark vs. John and see that this is utter rubish. There is no unity of style, other than they were written by people in the same area 1900 years ago. DK

04-28-2004, 10:48 AM	#3
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	I have to concur with fis. Is there any kind of argument to support this "unity of style" notion? It seems obviously wrong on the face of it.

04-28-2004, 10:53 AM	#4
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Well actually there IS a "unity of style" amongst Mk, Mt and Lk. Nevermind the reason is that Mt and Lk COPIED large chunks of Mk. But I have to agree that Gracq must have wholly ignored John in any analysis to come to his conclusion.

04-28-2004, 11:21 AM	#6
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Additionally, like so many apologetical arguments I've seen, there seems to eb a tendancy for apologists to predicate arguments on foundations that are baldly asserted to be true with no argument. Even the most famous apologetic arguments fall prey to this: Lord, Liar, Lunatic by C.S. Lewis - predicated on the idea that there was an historical Jesus and that we can reliably know something about him based on NT accounts Pascal's Wager - predication on the idea that only two choices, the Xian God exists or not, are possible and that belief in a deity is a matter of will. Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell, predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons.

04-28-2004, 11:30 AM	#7
Johann_Kaspar Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: France Posts: 1,831	Even inside Mt there is no unity of style. This text was edited by many different authors over a lengthy period of time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.